A little perspective from a guy who knows a thing or two.

[Norm Peterson]

Tim Miles re-tweeted a tweet from Fran Fraschilla quoting Greg Popovich in response to a question about whether the Spurs needed to make "adjustments" in order to beat the Clippers or whether they just needed to do the things they do a little better.

 

Great quote.

 

Throughout this past season, some fans on here and elsewhere were getting ready to hit the panic button.  "Our coaches don't know how to coach, gaaaaaaahhhh!!!  Whatever will we do?!?" 

 

I started having a little fun with sentiments about everything coming down to coaching.  Some of you might recall on the college hoops board, I started a thread where I basically joked that the coach of the winning team "outcoached" the other guy by whatever the final margin was.

 

Well, here's Greg Popovich talking about how much of this is "adjustments" and how much of it is just needing to do a better job of the things that players do, such as making shots or getting back on defense.  You see where Popovich comes down on the issue.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I think the single biggest issue we had this year had nothing to do with Xs and Os strategy.  It had to do with the fact that we just couldn't f#%&ing shoot the ball.  There's no amount of Xs and Os strategy that gets our kids to make more of the shots they take. 

 

I agree with Coach Miles that the shooting this year appeared to be an aberration, an outlier.  Shavon has never been remotely as bad of a shooter as he was down the stretch this year, for example.  Of course, it wasn't just him.  Too many guys passing up open looks because they have no confidence in their shot because everyone on the team seems to be missing and, for whatever reason, it just seemed to snow ball.

 

We don't need to make wholesale changes to how we do things.  We might need to pay more attention to finding an extra shooter or two when we're out recruiting.  But this year wasn't some referendum on Miles' coaching philosophies or basketball knowledge.

 

The one thing that I would say that I think Miles has to kind of look at in a self-critical manner is his substitutions.  Lee Barfknecht wrote a piece in the OWH where he tried to break down the "whys" of what went wrong this season.  All the stuff that I had already figured and many on here had said.  But there was an extra item that I hadn't thought of.

 

As in Miles' first year here, towards the end of this season, he went with a verrry short bench.  If you didn't play good D, you didn't play.  And, so, we had games where we're really only rotating 6 or maybe 7 guys in and out for the vaaaaast majority of the minutes.  And, because guys weren't going to be subbed out much and had to go full bore on D, Barfknecht wrote that some league coaches told him it looked like our guys were resting on offense.

 

I think there's something to that. 

 

Tim, you might need to bite the bullet and play some guys who might not be the best on D, just so that the players on the floor have something left in the tank when they get back to the offensive end of the floor.

 

Something to think about.

[atskooc]

My issue with adjustments was with player minutes.  I thought we adjusted too much at times.  We weren't playing guys because we didn't think they matched up against our opponents well enough, but one of those guys was supposed to be one of the best shooters on our team.  We're struggling to score, yet we were adjusting our roster to the opponent, which made it more difficult for us to score.

 

Play the best dudes to help you succeed, not to keep the other team from succeeding.

[NUdiehard]

The argument about in-game adjustments is a chicken-or-the-egg argument.  A great coach will have an excellent game plan going into the game--thus, no need to substantially deviate from that game plan.  A lesser coach may not have as good of a game plan going in to the game--thus necessitating him having to "figure it out" while the bullets are flying.  I remember so many times when NU was getting destroyed on a certain play the entire first half and fans complained that Bo failed to make an adjustment at halftime.  Forget that!  I was apoplectic he didn't have it figured out going into the game! 

 

Much more important to "coaching" is the system and attitude instilled in the team in practice, in the weight room, in the locker room, in the lounge, etc., throughout the entire season.  I agree people make too much of "in game" adjustments.  But if anyone thinks "coaching" as a whole is not important, then I don't think they understand Pop and his brilliance at all.  His team wins year after year with different players and he has adapted his system to his players brilliantly.  It is not about his "in game" coaching, it is about his year to year  and day-to-day coaching.

 

As for the shooting woes of NU this year.  Norm, I know you like to mock anyone who makes any suggestion that Miles has anything whatsoever to do with how well (or not well) players shoot.  To a large extent, I agree with you in this regard.  Typically, the best solution to having a poor shooting team is to recruit better shooters.  Recruiting is always first, whether its shooting, passing, rebounding, defense, etc.  The more elite the player coming in, the more likely he is going to be elite while here.

 

With that said, I do believe that a coach can have influences on a players development, including his shooting.  for instance, the amount of time devoted to offense versus defense in practice can definitely have an affect on shooting percentages.  There is only so much practice time in college, and coaches must choose how to allocate that time.  I doubt every coach allocates exactly 50% to offense and 50% to defense.  If a coach spends 60% of his time on defense, then offensive production (including shooting because part of running an offense is getting good shots, learning to play in the flow, etc) is going to probably be lower than if the practiced 70% on offense.  Of course, the coach thinks the tradeoff of having a good/great defense it worth it.

 

Similarly, if a coach emphasizes defense to such an extent that his players are so exhausted from playing defense that they "rest" while on offense, well then, yes, that is going to have an effect on offensive production and shooting percentages.

 

But there is another factor that I think may be an issue that has been completely overlooked.  When Miles was first hired,  I remember hearing and reading a lot about how much Miles likes to work with his players shooting form.  In fact, when referring to a recruit, he would often talk about their shooting form and say something along the lines of "he has a slight hitch in his form, but we will work on that and get it corrected."  I remember hearing a lot about how he (and his staff I assume) was working with Tai to "improve' or "correct" his shooting form as soon as he got on campus.  I am almost certain I remember reading about Shavon working on his form last summer. 

 

Here is the deal.  I agree that most players coming in to college have either poor shooting form or bad habits in their shooting form.  And I would probably even agree that in most cases, correcting shooting form is in the best interest of the player "in the long term" (including possible pro aspirations).  However, I am not certain it is always best in the short term.  Once a player gets to college, that player has shot thousands upon thousands of shots using their usual form.  Changing that form that late in the game is a major step and could easily be a "one step backward" before the hopeful two steps forward.  And some players may simply never get comfortable with the "new" shooting form.

 

So we see a player like Tai who can't seem to hit the broad side of the barn his freshman year, after Miles has spent the summer and fall tinkering with this shooting form.  Coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not.  Miles worked with Shavon on his form, and his 3-point percentage tanked this year.  I have no idea if Miles tried to work on Pitchford's shooting form last summer, but it wouldn't surprise me based on his results this year.  Players usually don't get substantially worse in their shooting percentages as their career progresses without some intervening cause.

 

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not trying to say that all or even the majority of the shooting woes this year are on Miles.  Honestly, I don't think I have enough information to know for sure, because I don't know exactly how Miles worked on or tried to change certain players shooting form this year, last year or the previous year.  But what I am saying is that this is just one example (of many I believe) of how a coach definitely "could' have in impact on a players, or a team's, shooting percentage over the course of a season or many seasons. 

[Donkey]

I agree shooting needs improvement, but I also feel the team has real chemistry issues.  I believe HHC poster Dean Smith has mentioned this belief as well in the past two years.   Looking back at the schedule and talking to people only reinforces this belief.  Nebraska played well against Maryland, Michigan State, and Wisconsin (the teams who went furthest in the tournament) but mentally checked out (and were routed) against Iowa, Ohio State, and Purdue.  

 

For Nebraska to do well next season, there needs to be a true leader on the court.  Petteway, with his mother's illness, may not have been in the best position to lead (and who can blame him).  Pitchford was never a leader type.  Shields could be a leader.  After than, no one else really stands out.

 

If White or Shields steps up next season and says "this is my team" and leads accordingly, I know we have a fighting chance.  Otherwise . . .

[Norm Peterson]

I agree shooting needs improvement, but I also feel the team has real chemistry issues.  . . .

Had.

[Norm Peterson]

The argument about in-game adjustments is a chicken-or-the-egg argument.  A great coach will have an excellent game plan going into the game--thus, no need to substantially deviate from that game plan.  A lesser coach may not have as good of a game plan going in to the game--thus necessitating him having to "figure it out" while the bullets are flying.  I remember so many times when NU was getting destroyed on a certain play the entire first half and fans complained that Bo failed to make an adjustment at halftime.  Forget that!  I was apoplectic he didn't have it figured out going into the game! 

 

Much more important to "coaching" is the system and attitude instilled in the team in practice, in the weight room, in the locker room, in the lounge, etc., throughout the entire season.  I agree people make too much of "in game" adjustments.  But if anyone thinks "coaching" as a whole is not important, then I don't think they understand Pop and his brilliance at all.  His team wins year after year with different players and he has adapted his system to his players brilliantly.  It is not about his "in game" coaching, it is about his year to year  and day-to-day coaching.

 

As for the shooting woes of NU this year.  Norm, I know you like to mock anyone who makes any suggestion that Miles has anything whatsoever to do with how well (or not well) players shoot.  To a large extent, I agree with you in this regard.  Typically, the best solution to having a poor shooting team is to recruit better shooters.  Recruiting is always first, whether its shooting, passing, rebounding, defense, etc.  The more elite the player coming in, the more likely he is going to be elite while here.

 

With that said, I do believe that a coach can have influences on a players development, including his shooting.  for instance, the amount of time devoted to offense versus defense in practice can definitely have an affect on shooting percentages.  There is only so much practice time in college, and coaches must choose how to allocate that time.  I doubt every coach allocates exactly 50% to offense and 50% to defense.  If a coach spends 60% of his time on defense, then offensive production (including shooting because part of running an offense is getting good shots, learning to play in the flow, etc) is going to probably be lower than if the practiced 70% on offense.  Of course, the coach thinks the tradeoff of having a good/great defense it worth it.

 

Similarly, if a coach emphasizes defense to such an extent that his players are so exhausted from playing defense that they "rest" while on offense, well then, yes, that is going to have an effect on offensive production and shooting percentages.

 

But there is another factor that I think may be an issue that has been completely overlooked.  When Miles was first hired,  I remember hearing and reading a lot about how much Miles likes to work with his players shooting form.  In fact, when referring to a recruit, he would often talk about their shooting form and say something along the lines of "he has a slight hitch in his form, but we will work on that and get it corrected."  I remember hearing a lot about how he (and his staff I assume) was working with Tai to "improve' or "correct" his shooting form as soon as he got on campus.  I am almost certain I remember reading about Shavon working on his form last summer. 

 

Here is the deal.  I agree that most players coming in to college have either poor shooting form or bad habits in their shooting form.  And I would probably even agree that in most cases, correcting shooting form is in the best interest of the player "in the long term" (including possible pro aspirations).  However, I am not certain it is always best in the short term.  Once a player gets to college, that player has shot thousands upon thousands of shots using their usual form.  Changing that form that late in the game is a major step and could easily be a "one step backward" before the hopeful two steps forward.  And some players may simply never get comfortable with the "new" shooting form.

 

So we see a player like Tai who can't seem to hit the broad side of the barn his freshman year, after Miles has spent the summer and fall tinkering with this shooting form.  Coincidence?  Maybe, maybe not.  Miles worked with Shavon on his form, and his 3-point percentage tanked this year.  I have no idea if Miles tried to work on Pitchford's shooting form last summer, but it wouldn't surprise me based on his results this year.  Players usually don't get substantially worse in their shooting percentages as their career progresses without some intervening cause.

 

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not trying to say that all or even the majority of the shooting woes this year are on Miles.  Honestly, I don't think I have enough information to know for sure, because I don't know exactly how Miles worked on or tried to change certain players shooting form this year, last year or the previous year.  But what I am saying is that this is just one example (of many I believe) of how a coach definitely "could' have in impact on a players, or a team's, shooting percentage over the course of a season or many seasons. 

Well, "mock" sounds so negative when you use it like that.  I don't "mock" so much as I tease or kid people.  Just good-natured ribbing.  And I make fun of myself as much as I make fun of anyone else, so ...

 

I used to make fun of myself for being the most long-winded poster on this board.  I no longer hold that particular title, however. 

[49r]

I agree shooting needs improvement, but I also feel the team has real chemistry issues.  I believe HHC poster Dean Smith has mentioned this belief as well in the past two years.   Looking back at the schedule and talking to people only reinforces this belief.  Nebraska played well against Maryland, Michigan State, and Wisconsin (the teams who went furthest in the tournament) but mentally checked out (and were routed) against Iowa, Ohio State, and Purdue.  

 

For Nebraska to do well next season, there needs to be a true leader on the court.  Petteway, with his mother's illness, may not have been in the best position to lead (and who can blame him).  Pitchford was never a leader type.  Shields could be a leader.  After than, no one else really stands out.

 

If White or Shields steps up next season and says "this is my team" and leads accordingly, I know we have a fighting chance.  Otherwise . . .

 

Maybe we should have Miles stand up in front of the crowd at the scrimmage Gene Hackman-style and say "this is your team", too?  Just for good measure?  

[hhcmatt]

I agree shooting needs improvement, but I also feel the team has real chemistry issues.  I believe HHC poster Dean Smith has mentioned this belief as well in the past two years.   Looking back at the schedule and talking to people only reinforces this belief.  Nebraska played well against Maryland, Michigan State, and Wisconsin (the teams who went furthest in the tournament) but mentally checked out (and were routed) against Iowa, Ohio State, and Purdue.  

 

For Nebraska to do well next season, there needs to be a true leader on the court.  Petteway, with his mother's illness, may not have been in the best position to lead (and who can blame him).  Pitchford was never a leader type.  Shields could be a leader.  After than, no one else really stands out.

 

If White or Shields steps up next season and says "this is my team" and leads accordingly, I know we have a fighting chance.  Otherwise . . .

 

I don't know if either Shields or White has the personality for that. Benny or Tai perhaps do but it remains to be seen if their roles will increase, decrease, or stay the same. It was a good idea to postpone our foreign trip until this year because hopefully that will allow us to establish some roles.

[hhcmatt]

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not trying to say that all or even the majority of the shooting woes this year are on Miles.  Honestly, I don't think I have enough information to know for sure, because I don't know exactly how Miles worked on or tried to change certain players shooting form this year, last year or the previous year.  But what I am saying is that this is just one example (of many I believe) of how a coach definitely "could' have in impact on a players, or a team's, shooting percentage over the course of a season or many seasons. 

 

Without attributing it either to coaching or recruiting I can tell you FWIW that Miles' teams at ND St and Colorado St became better than average shooting teams towards the end of his runs at each program.

[atskooc]

 

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not trying to say that all or even the majority of the shooting woes this year are on Miles.  Honestly, I don't think I have enough information to know for sure, because I don't know exactly how Miles worked on or tried to change certain players shooting form this year, last year or the previous year.  But what I am saying is that this is just one example (of many I believe) of how a coach definitely "could' have in impact on a players, or a team's, shooting percentage over the course of a season or many seasons. 

 

Without attributing it either to coaching or recruiting I can tell you FWIW that Miles' teams at ND St and Colorado St became better than average shooting teams towards the end of his runs at each program.

 

Let's hope for that kind of change at the beginning of his run here.

[NUdiehard]

 

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not trying to say that all or even the majority of the shooting woes this year are on Miles.  Honestly, I don't think I have enough information to know for sure, because I don't know exactly how Miles worked on or tried to change certain players shooting form this year, last year or the previous year.  But what I am saying is that this is just one example (of many I believe) of how a coach definitely "could' have in impact on a players, or a team's, shooting percentage over the course of a season or many seasons. 

 

Without attributing it either to coaching or recruiting I can tell you FWIW that Miles' teams at ND St and Colorado St became better than average shooting teams towards the end of his runs at each program.

 

I get that.  And it is why when Miles was hired that shooting was probably the last thing I thought might be an issue for his teams and this program under his watch.  But I also think Miles quickly learned that a different level of athlete is required to play in the B1G.  This isn't ND St or even CSU.  Different league, different level of talent and different level of athlete needed to compete.  I would  imagine a guy like Fuller would have been a starter from day 1 at ND St. and either a starter or a major contributor as a freshman at CSU.  But in the B1G, you need a certain level of athleticism, quickness, and strength to play defense at this level.  Different cat.  Different game.  Requires different strategies. 

 

All I know is that it is unusual for players to significantly regress in their shooting percentages over the course of their college career.  And it just seems odd to me that so many players on one team can all be such poor shooters.  That is either a major recruiting deficiency or a systemic coaching issue.  As of now, I believe it is mostly recruiting, but it is also possible that there are some coaching issues involved--whether changing shooting motions or focusing too much on defense, etc.  Time will tell.  But as I have said in a previous thread, ultimately, after years 4 and 5, it all falls back on Miles.  If he has a bunch of players in year 5 that can't shoot, then that is either his failure of recruiting or failure of coaching.  Either way, it is on him.  On the other hand, if in year 5 he has a complete team that is productive on offense and defense and finishing in the top half or third of the conference and going to the dance, then it is all him and he deserves all the praise and credit that he will get.

[big red22]

 

 

Before you go apoplectic on me, I am not trying to say that all or even the majority of the shooting woes this year are on Miles.  Honestly, I don't think I have enough information to know for sure, because I don't know exactly how Miles worked on or tried to change certain players shooting form this year, last year or the previous year.  But what I am saying is that this is just one example (of many I believe) of how a coach definitely "could' have in impact on a players, or a team's, shooting percentage over the course of a season or many seasons. 

 

Without attributing it either to coaching or recruiting I can tell you FWIW that Miles' teams at ND St and Colorado St became better than average shooting teams towards the end of his runs at each program.

 

I get that.  And it is why when Miles was hired that shooting was probably the last thing I thought might be an issue for his teams and this program under his watch.  But I also think Miles quickly learned that a different level of athlete is required to play in the B1G.  This isn't ND St or even CSU.  Different league, different level of talent and different level of athlete needed to compete.  I would  imagine a guy like Fuller would have been a starter from day 1 at ND St. and either a starter or a major contributor as a freshman at CSU.  But in the B1G, you need a certain level of athleticism, quickness, and strength to play defense at this level.  Different cat.  Different game.  Requires different strategies. 

 

All I know is that it is unusual for players to significantly regress in their shooting percentages over the course of their college career.  And it just seems odd to me that so many players on one team can all be such poor shooters.  That is either a major recruiting deficiency or a systemic coaching issue.  As of now, I believe it is mostly recruiting, but it is also possible that there are some coaching issues involved--whether changing shooting motions or focusing too much on defense, etc.  Time will tell.  But as I have said in a previous thread, ultimately, after years 4 and 5, it all falls back on Miles.  If he has a bunch of players in year 5 that can't shoot, then that is either his failure of recruiting or failure of coaching.  Either way, it is on him.  On the other hand, if in year 5 he has a complete team that is productive on offense and defense and finishing in the top half or third of the conference and going to the dance, then it is all him and he deserves all the praise and credit that he will get.

 

I really don't like this argument at all, and I hear it all the time.  Trust me I believe it helps, but it is not the end all be all in basketball. Eric Piatkowski wasn't exactly blowing up my mind with athletic ability

 

Nick Fuller and Bronson Koenig played on the same team and Fuller led the team in points.  

 

The problem lies into if the players buy into the system, because Miles "System" has always worked.  Getting stronger does help, but it is irrelevant when it comes to technique

 

Also just to prove to you how wrong that statement is, I have provide a link to back it up!

 

http://dailythunder.com/2010/11/remember-that-one-time-kd-couldnt-bench-185-yeah-he-can-now/

[NUdiehard]

 

 

 

 

I really don't like this argument at all, and I here it all the time.  Trust me I believe it helps, Eric Piatkowski wasn't exactly blowing up my mind with athletic ability

 

Nick Fuller and Bronson Koenig played on the same team and Fuller led the team in points.  

 

The problem lies into if the players buy into the system, because Miles "System" has always worked.  

 

Also just to prove to you how wrong that statement is this link should back it up!

 

http://dailythunder.com/2010/11/remember-that-one-time-kd-couldnt-bench-185-yeah-he-can-now/

 

 

Are you seriously saying that Fuller didn't see the floor because he didn't buy into Miles system? And if Fuller is better than Koenig, then how come Bo Ryan offered a scholarship to Koenig and not to Fuller even though they both were Wisconsin players that Bo would have scouted and seen and reviewed extensively? 

[hhcmatt]

All I know is that it is unusual for players to significantly regress in their shooting percentages over the course of their college career. 

 

That is a very dependent statement...it's especially dependent on volume, role, teammates, etc. Take a good shooting role player and turn him into your main offensive weapon next year and watch that shooting percentage go down.

 

Pitchford? Couldn't you attribute his shooting to whatever else he had going on off the court? How good was he before he came here and redshirted? How good was Petteway before he redshirted?

Webster? He's on record as saying that shooting wasn't his strong point. 

Shields? He shot twice as many 3s last year as he did his first two years. Did he become a worse shooter or did he take more 3s because someone had to? Same deal with a lot of the guys we had shooting.

Fuller? If he does happen to be a great shooter it doesn't really matter because he can't get off the bench.

The thought that we're bringing in a bunch of guys and making them worse shooters doesn't really hold water for me.

 

At the end of the day I'd put it on recruiting vs anything else....putting together a bunch of slashers with guys who aren't great outside shooters nor strong post presences turns us into a one dimensional team where you have guys who shouldn't be taking some long range shots missing those shots. We're bringing in a ton of new faces...hopefully this will be the more talented and diversified group we expect it to be.

[Norm Peterson]

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't like this argument at all, and I here it all the time.  Trust me I believe it helps, Eric Piatkowski wasn't exactly blowing up my mind with athletic ability

 

Nick Fuller and Bronson Koenig played on the same team and Fuller led the team in points.  

 

The problem lies into if the players buy into the system, because Miles "System" has always worked.  

 

Also just to prove to you how wrong that statement is this link should back it up!

 

http://dailythunder.com/2010/11/remember-that-one-time-kd-couldnt-bench-185-yeah-he-can-now/

 

 

Are you seriously saying that Fuller didn't see the floor because he didn't buy into Miles system? And if Fuller is better than Koenig, then how come Bo Ryan offered a scholarship to Koenig and not to Fuller even though they both were Wisconsin players that Bo would have scouted and seen and reviewed extensively? 

 

Am I the only one who noticed that Bronson Koenig is a point guard (who dishes a lot but doesn't score a ton) and Nick Fuller is a (smallish) power forward?

 

Why are you guys comparing Bronson to Nick? 

[Norm Peterson]

Shields? He shot twice as many 3s last year as he did his first two years. Did he become a worse shooter or did he take more 3s because someone had to?

Shields became a worse shooter.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

Freshman year he was 14-39 from three; sophomore year he was 18-57; this year he was only 17-87.

 

So, yeah, he took 30 more treys this year than last, but he made one fewer.  He took a bunch more but didn't make as many.  That makes him worse.  But it wasn't about coaching or lack thereof.  My view is that it was all mental for Shavon.  Lost confidence in his shot and couldn't buy a three.  He's better than that.  Miles calls this year an outlier.  I agree.  I think we'll see a much better shooter in Shavon next year.

 

Having a guy like Andrew White can make everyone more confident in their shooting.  There's a lot mental about 3-point shooting percentage.  Look no further than Walt for proof of that.

[Norm Peterson]

Just to kind of emphasize how much mentality can affect perimeter shooting, Coach Miles said in his recent presser that things kinda went to crap after the Creighton and Incarnate Word losses.  We got frustrated in the exhibition game because we weren't playing as well as we expected.  Miles says he thought we'd be OK, but we were never OK. 

 

But let's look at Shavon.  Prior to the Creighton game, Shavon was 7 of 16 from deep, 43.8%.

 

The rest of the season from CU on, Shavon was only 10 of 71, 14.1%.

 

He makes 7 of his first 16 threes and then only 10 of his next 71.

 

Being a higher volume shooter doesn't explain that precipitous drop.

 

You could see the team this past season struggling early with the expectations and then it snowballed on them.  And no one was playing as well as they wanted.  And adversity has a tendency to reveal bad character in some athletes.  And it is my firm belief that a couple of guys responded poorly to the adversity and it dragged down the whole group this year.

 

And those guys ain't comin' back.  So ...